Support NeoGAF

[Wulfer]

Overly dramatic. This is business. Even Lulu said at the end of the day these companies have to work together no matter how this shakes out.

Jim maybe should have thought about that before makin such statements.

 

[graywolf323]

Just reading this makes me want the deal to go through.

If Sony had had the money to hoover up a publisher or two during the PS4 era they would have done. And would have taken great delight in curb stomping Microsoft out of the console business.

yes which is exactly why Sony purchased one or two publishers during the height of the PS2 era when they were making money hand over fist to seemingly ensure their dominance going forward, oh wait… they didn't

 

[Hendrick's]

What are they doing then?

Overreaching

 

[Topher]

and they have no power to do so even if there was a law.

Overreaching

Oh good. Microsoft can just ignore them then.

 

[Wulfer]

What are they doing then?

Well, that my friend we'll get the answer too when Sony and MS get their day in court in August and this time Sony can't hide.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Let's see him smile next year when he tries to renew this COD contract with ABK if the merger is blocked! "You get 10% Jim take it or leave it!"

1. is not going to be blocked.

2.He will smile. He has the upper hand.
Jim: Now we take 40% of the cut.

 

[Topher]

Well, that my friend we'll get the answer too when Sony and MS get their day in court in August and this time Sony can't hide.

Ah man, I do hope this ends up in court. That will be entertaining to say the least

 

[gothmog]

I see we're back on the power fantasies again. CMA must have people shook.

 

[knocksky]

That didn't happen and if it did they would have had to go through exactly the same regulatory process that Microsoft is currently.

All these fantasy "if Sony could..." scenarios are nonsense. That's not the reality. The reality is what we are currently living and witnessing. Wanting the deal to go through because of fictional fantasies is bizarre to say the least.

Fictional fantasies lol. Happened or not, reality or not, you know full well how things would have played out.

When Microsoft was buying zenimax, and everyone was questioning whether they would go exclusive or not. One sentiment was pretty much unanimous. There would have been no question of exclusivity if Sony had been the purchaser. I am sure that you remember those threads.

Seeing Sony bring up zenimax (amongst other things) in particular annoys me.

Yeah yeah I know it's all a what if, but let's not pretend that otherwise FFS.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter. The deal is dead anyway. The CMA will kill this soon enough.

 

[Hendrick's]

The CMA will kill this soon enough.

Trust in Lulu.

 

[GHG]

Fictional fantasies lol. Happened or not, reality or not, you know full well how things would have played out.

Thanks for proving my point.

If you want the basis of your discussions to be based on something that has not and will not happen then I'm not going to waste my time entertaining it.

We have more documentation and data than ever but for some reason people now want to focus on ridiculous "what if Sony did this" fake scenarios when they know full well they don't have access to $70 billion to purchase Activision/Blizzard.

 

[knocksky]

yes which is exactly why Sony purchased one or two publishers during the height of the PS2 era when they were making money hand over fist to seemingly ensure their dominance going forward, oh wait… they didn't

They probably didn't think that they needed to when they were reboring both Microsoft and Nintendo at the same time. And were getting games exclusively by default.

 

[Banjo64]

What are they doing then?

Enforcing feelings.

 

[Iced Arcade]

So basically Sony doesn't want PS gamers to get COD on its subscription service and would rather reap the annual full priced milkings. Sucks for gamers but I get it from a business who likes money stand point.

 

[ZehDon]

Overly dramatic. This is business. Even Lulu said at the end of the day these companies have to work together no matter how this shakes out.

While that's certainly true, in the event this doesn't clear, Sony's lobbying will have personally cost ABK's executives the multi-million-dollar paydays that Microsoft had lined up for them. In that scenario, I'd imagine Microsoft becomes the preferred business partner for a lot of their decision makers.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Trust in Lulu.

lulu what. she ain't doing shit (aside of busting some unions)

Trust the numbers.

 

[Drell]

Means nothing since there was no binding legal contract and technically they did keep games on ps by supporting the existing contracts

Apple seems to be doing fine. You can install Linux if you want

Can you get native port of most AAA games on Linux or Mac OS? Don't think so... It progresses but Windows is still a shitty monopoly. Xbox, while not leading get nearly all the AAA games.

But i'm beginning to get used to MS fanboys being unable to make any correct comparaison.

 

[Topher]

While that's certainly true, in the event this doesn't clear, Sony's lobbying will have personally cost ABK's executives the multi-million-dollar paydays that Microsoft had lined up for them. In that scenario, I'd imagine Microsoft becomes the preferred business partner for a lot of their decision makers.

Fair points. I imagine there will be quite a bit of turmoil in the higher ranks of ABK. There will be a lot of anger directed towards Sony, but also mighty Microsoft for not getting the deal done. Hard to say what will happen if this acquisition is blocked.

But.....I'll say again, I still believe it will go through. Either the CMA will agree with concessions of some kind or the Tribunal will ultimately decide. I think if it goes that far, Microsoft prevails.

 

[Elios83]

This whole thing has turned me off Microsoft and Xbox completely. Prior to this they'd played their hand well. The veil slipped and they've made it blatantly obvious that they are playing the long game here to extinguish the competition. So much for Phil's 'we can all do well' mantra.

I think that trying to extinguish competition during this gen is something they carefully planned for a few years before the beginning of the current gen.
The whole plan was based on exploiting their financial strength coming from other dominant positions which at some point they clearly identified as their main strength and differentiator.

Luring casuals from the beginning with a cheap hardware promising them access to big games almost for free because they could afford to pay the bills as long as necessary to reach their goals.
In parallel the plan was to start buying whole publishers to starve competition progressively of key support.
The icing on the cake was supposed to be a continous FUD campaign against the competition (and a positive propaganda for them) acted with the help of the many friendly characters in the press and on socials to try to influence and change the public's perception towards the brands at a marketing level.

I must say that on paper the whole thing sounded good, so much that seeing the whole thing currently failing as much as it is is a surprise, but they clearly miscalculated the fact that people are not buying things just because they're cheap, gamers are actually willing to pay for great games, subscription services for games are less effective and attractive compared to similar services for movies and music because games simply cannot be consumed as if they were songs or movies. If you like a game you can spend many weeks if not months on it and at that point you can just buy it.
And finally with Activision they just aimed too high, too quickly and completely miscalculated they would put themselves into a legal mess that now risks to compromise their whole strategy long term and at very least has fully exposed them.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I think that trying to extinguish competition during this gen is something they carefully planned for a few years before the beginning of the current gen.
The whole plan was based on exploiting their financial strength coming from other dominant positions which at some point they clearly identified as their main strength and differentiator.

Luring casuals from the beginning with a cheap hardware promising them access to big games almost for free because they could afford to pay the bills as long as necessary to reach their goals.
In parallel the plan was to start buying whole publishers to starve competition progressively of key support.
The icing on the cake was supposed to be a continous FUD campaign against the competition (and a positive propaganda for them) acted with the help of the many friendly characters in the press and on socials to try to influence and change the public's perception towards the brands at a marketing level.

I must say that on paper the whole thing sounded good, so much that seeing the whole thing currently failing as much as it is is a surprise, but they clearly miscalculated the fact that people are not buying things just because they're cheap, gamers are actually willing to pay for great games, subscription services for games are less effective and attractive compared to similar services for movies and music because games simply cannot be consumed as if they were songs or movies. If you like a game you can spend many weeks if not months on it and at that point you can just buy it.
And finally with Activision they just aimed too high, too quickly and completely miscalculated they would put themselves into a legal mess that now risks to compromise their whole strategy long term and at very least has fully exposed them.

this is why listening to people like Jez Corden ("Xbox analyst") laying down MS's "master plan" made me chuckle.

 

[In Cold Blood]

Microsoft should realize that divesting is their best option to get a better COD deal going forward AND still expand their studio offerings. I'm guessing the problem is that they're going to find it difficult to get someone who will overpay for CoD/Activision not that cash isn't so abundant.

It's not. MS has an interest in the Activision studios as well as the IP. Why would they give away the opportunity to own IW or Trayarch? Toys for Bob who could do the next Banjo.

 

[Alex Scott]

But.....I'll say again, I still believe it will go through. Either the CMA will agree with concessions of some kind or the Tribunal will ultimately decide. I think if it goes that far, Microsoft prevails.

To my knowledge if MS files an appeal and wins , the decision goes back to the CMA and the process will begin again. Whatever CMA decides then, that's final. So there is no court deciding it, its CMA all the way.

 

[Dane]

I think that trying to extinguish competition during this gen is something they carefully planned for a few years before the beginning of the current gen.
The whole plan was based on exploiting their financial strength coming from other dominant positions which at some point they clearly identified as their main strength and differentiator.

Luring casuals from the beginning with a cheap hardware promising them access to big games almost for free because they could afford to pay the bills as long as necessary to reach their goals.
In parallel the plan was to start buying whole publishers to starve competition progressively of key support.
The icing on the cake was supposed to be a continous FUD campaign against the competition (and a positive propaganda for them) acted with the help of the many friendly characters in the press and on socials to try to influence and change the public's perception towards the brands at a marketing level.

I must say that on paper the whole thing sounded good, so much that seeing the whole thing currently failing as much as it is is a surprise, but they clearly miscalculated the fact that people are not buying things just because they're cheap, gamers are actually willing to pay for great games, subscription services for games are less effective and attractive compared to similar services for movies and music because games simply cannot be consumed as if they were songs or movies. If you like a game you can spend many weeks if not months on it and at that point you can just buy it.
And finally with Activision they just aimed too high, too quickly and completely miscalculated they would put themselves into a legal mess that now risks to compromise their whole strategy long term and at very least has fully exposed them.

Isn't this what Sony did in 94? Having a financial strength from the company as a whole, selling cheaper than its competitors, buying out a big publisher at the time (Psygnosis) and moneyhatting exclusives left and right because they were the biggest one by large to afford that?

 

[In Cold Blood]

Would Starfield and Elder Scrolls VI have come out for the PS5 if MS hadn't bought Zenimax? 100%.
This "It was never announced for the PS5, so nothing was taken away" is absolute PR bullshit that could fly straight out of Phil Spencer's mouth.

Move on. Zenimax is Xbox now.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

 

[ZehDon]

... But.....I'll say again, I still believe it will go through. Either the CMA will agree with concessions of some kind or the Tribunal will ultimately decide. I think if it goes that far, Microsoft prevails.

I tend to agree. I think Microsoft will need to take this further with the CMA than I had originally expected, but I think once they get to that level, they come out on top.

 

[graywolf323]

Isn't this what Sony did in 94? Having a financial strength from the company as a whole, selling cheaper than its competitors, buying out a big publisher at the time (Psygnosis) and moneyhatting exclusives left and right because they were the biggest one by large to afford that?

they bought Psygnosis before the PlayStation launched and also that's BEFORE they got into the video game platform industry

Microsoft is doing this after 20+ years

 

[Mibu no ookami]

It's not. MS has an interest in the Activision studios as well as the IP. Why would they give away the opportunity to own IW or Trayarch? Toys for Bob who could do the next Banjo.

That's not going to be an option for them.

 

[Dane]

they bought Psygnosis before the PlayStation launched and also that's BEFORE they got into the video game platform industry

Microsoft is doing this after 20+ years

Wrong, they bought Psygnosis WHEN they decided to get in the industry, they had a development division years before for the SNES.

 

[graywolf323]

Wrong, they bought Psygnosis WHEN they decided to get in the industry, they had a development division years before for the SNES.

eh? they bought Psygnosis in 1993 and the PlayStation 1 didn't release until December 1994 in Japan and later in 1995 in the rest of the world, I specified the platform industry not the video game industry in general

also it only cost them 20 million pounds which is adjusted for inflation about 52 million pounds in 2023

neither of those things compare to Microsoft buying Bethesda & ABK for a combined nearly ~$80 BILLION 20+ years AFTER the Xbox released, a better comparison would be how Microsoft purchased Bungie in preparation for the Xbox (and then canceled Halo for Mac) while Sony with Psygnosis still had them release games on Sega Saturn and Nintendo 64

 

[Aaron Olive]

It's 10 years. That's a crazy amount of time for any deal.

Not really a long time, think about it... that's one generation PS4 and XBone came out in 2013 and here we are already in 2023 (gone in a blink) call duty still on those systems and those systems are still on store shelves.

PS3/Xbox 360 crossover
Ghost :2013
Advanced warfare :2014
Black Ops 3 :2015

PS4/XB One era
Infinite Warfare :2016
WWII :2017
Black Ops 4 :2018
Modern Warfare :2019

PS5/Series X|S crossover
Black ops Cold War :2020
Vanguard :2021
Modern Warfare II :2022

Call of Duty :2023 PS4|XB One.....???

 

[Hendrick's]

Not really, think about it that's one generation PS4 and XBone came out in 2013 and here we are 2023 call duty still on those systems and still relevant.

PS3/Xbox 360 crossover
Ghost :2013
Advanced warfare :2014
Black ops 3 :2015

PS4/XB One era
Infinite Warfare :2016
WWII :2017
Black ops 4 :2018
Modern warfare :2019

PS5/Series X|S crossover
Black ops Cold War :2020
Call of duty vanguard :2021
Call of duty MW II :2022

How is that one generation? You just displayed how that is 3-4 years.

 

[mansoor1980]

Oh good. Microsoft can just ignore them then.

love that gif , will be used in the future a lot

 

[Topher]

To my knowledge if MS files an appeal and wins , the decision goes back to the CMA and the process will begin again. Whatever CMA decides then, that's final. So there is no court deciding it, its CMA all the way.

Really? Ok…did not know that.

 

[BlitzerRadic]

While that's certainly true, in the event this doesn't clear, Sony's lobbying will have personally cost ABK's executives the multi-million-dollar paydays that Microsoft had lined up for them. In that scenario, I'd imagine Microsoft becomes the preferred business partner for a lot of their decision makers.

CEO is obligated to act on the best interests of the shareholders. How is taking a deal that makes less money acting in their best interests?

 

[Alex Scott]

Really? Ok…did not know that.

Yes. MS has to prove that CMA acted "irrationally, illegally or with procedural impropriety.". I still think to some extent CMA might approve . For some reason I think MS can sway CMA.

Appealing a decision by the CMA in a merger review – The In-House Lawyer

www.inhouselawyer.co.uk

 

[In Cold Blood]

That's not going to be an option for them.

The CMA also said they will look at behavioural remedies, they never said that nothing other than selling off COD will do.
On top of that, if you don't think that the CMA and the EU arnt talking to each other about what they are going to do you are kidding yourself.

 

[In Cold Blood]

There is an interesting thing here.
If by MS offering a 10 year deal to Sony for COD is considered acceptable by the regulators, and the deal passes, and Sony still refuse to accept the deal, then MS wont have to put COD on PS.

 

[tpieman2029]

Really? Ok…did not know that.

The exception but it seems highly unlikely is Microsoft can apply to the actual government and one of the ministers can over rule the cma but that seems highly unlikely

 

[bitbydeath]

Well, that my friend we'll get the answer too when Sony and MS get their day in court in August and this time Sony can't hide.

Sorry dude, this will be dead when the CMA make their final ruling in April.

 

[Dane]

eh? they bought Psygnosis in 1993 and the PlayStation 1 didn't release until December 1994 in Japan and later in 1995 in the rest of the world, I specified the platform industry not the video game industry in general

also it only cost them 20 million pounds which is adjusted for inflation about 52 million pounds in 2023

neither of those things compare to Microsoft buying Bethesda & ABK for a combined nearly ~$80 BILLION 20+ years AFTER the Xbox released, a better comparison would be how Microsoft purchased Bungie in preparation for the Xbox (and then canceled Halo for Mac) while Sony with Psygnosis still had them release games on Sega Saturn and Nintendo 64

They decided to enter the platform industry in late 92, early 93, Psygnosis acquisition was INTENDED for this, it was Europe biggest publisher and that meant they also acquired a bunch of IPs that... were multiplatform early as the acquisition deal allowed that, then became exclusive, note that Sony tried to get rid of Psygnosis once in 1996... because of the multiplatform development, only to backtrack due its big value.

 

[fallingdove]

They are also paying 70 billion. They shouldn't have to make any deal.

The depth and nuance to this insight… Something I would only expect from the ABK thread on ResetEra. Breathtaking.

Shocked/not-so-shocked at the revelation that there is more to the story than Microsoft offering Sony a 10 year COD deal.

The Xbox PR around the CMA investigation has been "The Emperor's New Clothes" IRL. The only people pretending that Microsoft's ass isn't showing are the very same incapable of admitting that with more money and development resources than Nintendo and Sony, Phil and team have failed to perform.

It's worrisome that so many would prefer that the company with more money should be able to disrupt businesses that have been far more reliable in producing memorable gaming experiences. I guess that's tribalism for you.

 

[El Pistolero]

yes which is exactly why Sony purchased one or two publishers during the height of the PS2 era when they were making money hand over fist to seemingly ensure their dominance going forward, oh wait… they didn't

You honour, I put it to you that while I did kill Chris, he might have killed me had he thought about doing it, brought a knife like I did, and been presented with the right circumstances. Therefore, we can all agree that I am innocent!

 

[Topher]

There is an interesting thing here.
If by MS offering a 10 year deal to Sony for COD is considered acceptable by the regulators, and the deal passes, and Sony still refuse to accept the deal, then MS wont have to put COD on PS.

If the deal passes with regulators approving the 10 year deal then it doesn't matter what Sony accepts. MS still has to abide by the deal either way.

 

[Hendrick's]

It's worrisome that so many would prefer that the company with more money should be able to disrupt businesses that have been far more reliable in producing memorable gaming experiences. I guess that's tribalism for you.

I guess it is.

+ Sony have engineered a console that developers love developing for
+ Sony have have found a way to make the console affordable even with it's alien tech
+ Sony are continuing to win hearts and minds of gamers - the PS5 reveal broke streaming numbers on youtube (the Zenimax megaton won't come close to the coverage that PS5 has received)

Oh, and you get Demon's Souls, and Horizon ZD and God of War sequels in the first year the console is around? Doesn't quite feel like laying down... Are acquisitions the measure of success?

If the PS5 significantly outsells the Xbox Series X/S globally, these Microsoft acquisitions will mean jack shit to exclusivity. Microsoft have hedged their bets on building a subscription-based ecosystem in Game Pass and will need years and hundreds of millions of subscriptions to make a dent in the investment. You don't get that by locking out two of the largest gaming platforms in the world with Playstation and Nintendo.

What a terrible sizzle reel. The marketing team over at Xbox are trash tier. Persona 3 portable and Hello Neighbor 2 are supposed to get me excited about what they have in store? It's never been easier to pass on GamePass…

 

[Foilz]

The depth and nuance to this insight… Something I would only expect from the ABK thread on ResetEra. Breathtaking.

Shocked/not-so-shocked at the revelation that there is more to the story than Microsoft offering Sony a 10 year COD deal.

The Xbox PR around the CMA investigation has been "The Emperor's New Clothes" IRL. The only people pretending that Microsoft's ass isn't showing are the very same incapable of admitting that with more money and development resources than Nintendo and Sony, Phil and team have failed to perform.

It's worrisome that so many would prefer that the company with more money should be able to disrupt businesses that have been far more reliable in producing memorable gaming experiences. I guess that's tribalism for you.

So you're ok with Google Amazon or tencent buying them instead?

 

[Topher]

So you're ok with Google Amazon or tencent buying them instead?

Are you? Any legal argument that can be made for Microsoft acquiring ABK also applies to Google, Amazon, Tencent....etc.

 

[Drell]

So you're ok with Google Amazon or tencent buying them instead?

Google would fuck up just like they did with Stadia. Then we could finally say goodbye to that fastfood fps license until we get a new generic American AAA dudebro IP that sells like hotcake. Then MS would want to buy the publisher and... Oh wait.

 

[Nubulax]

Fictional fantasies lol. Happened or not, reality or not, you know full well how things would have played out.

When Microsoft was buying zenimax, and everyone was questioning whether they would go exclusive or not. One sentiment was pretty much unanimous. There would have been no question of exclusivity if Sony had been the purchaser. I am sure that you remember those threads.

Seeing Sony bring up zenimax (amongst other things) in particular annoys me.

Yeah yeah I know it's all a what if, but let's not pretend that otherwise FFS.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter. The deal is dead anyway. The CMA will kill this soon enough.

Yet sony bought Bungie and made it clear as day from the very begining they were keeping it multiplat and bungie is not even under PS studios. That people just try to dig at Sony saying they would have bought zenimax and automatically made everything exclusive is a reach

 

[fallingdove]

I guess it is.

Shoot - you found a couple of my many pro-Sony posts. I don't know why you'd waste time doing so, It's no secret that I prefer what Nintendo and Sony have offered the industry over Xbox — especially in the last couple of generations.

While I am an XSX owner, I think that GamePass and gaming subscriptions are a negative for the industry. I am also against corporate consolidation over investing in home-grown innovation.

 

[Nubulax]

I think that trying to extinguish competition during this gen is something they carefully planned for a few years before the beginning of the current gen.
The whole plan was based on exploiting their financial strength coming from other dominant positions which at some point they clearly identified as their main strength and differentiator.

Luring casuals from the beginning with a cheap hardware promising them access to big games almost for free because they could afford to pay the bills as long as necessary to reach their goals.
In parallel the plan was to start buying whole publishers to starve competition progressively of key support.
The icing on the cake was supposed to be a continous FUD campaign against the competition (and a positive propaganda for them) acted with the help of the many friendly characters in the press and on socials to try to influence and change the public's perception towards the brands at a marketing level.

I must say that on paper the whole thing sounded good, so much that seeing the whole thing currently failing as much as it is is a surprise, but they clearly miscalculated the fact that people are not buying things just because they're cheap, gamers are actually willing to pay for great games, subscription services for games are less effective and attractive compared to similar services for movies and music because games simply cannot be consumed as if they were songs or movies. If you like a game you can spend many weeks if not months on it and at that point you can just buy it.
And finally with Activision they just aimed too high, too quickly and completely miscalculated they would put themselves into a legal mess that now risks to compromise their whole strategy long term and at very least has fully exposed them.

I dont think they were aiming for Activision exactly.... it just kind of fell in their lap because of the horrible PR they were getting and bobby and the board wanting a golden parachute out of the mess they created